Talk:Arts
Definition? What exactly falls under the category of art? Painting, music, theater all are under the classic "art" but I'm sure there are many other forms that could be considered. At it's broadest, I think that art encapsulates almost any form of creative output. So perhaps we should settle on a definition (or at least discuss it) before we decide if art should be publicly funded or not. --Bob 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Yes. We need to define art, public and funding. Probably a good definition for the last two will be useable across the wiki. --User:fgs Here's a good start http://members.cox.net/midian/editorials/art.htm organization I'm imagining these for/against discussion as multiple massive essays that talk to one another dynamically. So someone can answer an argument in the 'for' essay in the 'against' essay. Just get a good essay framework and you're good to go. What do people think? This Wiki is in the early stages. I say do it and see what happens. -User:Fgs Art Most public funded art I've seen could be done by anyone. Why don't we all become "artists" and let the government support us all with grants? Background We need some background to this. How much does the government support the arts now, either on a federal level or state level? What about other countries? Chadlupkes 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Local governments vary, and the results vary also. Tucson, Arizona paid over $1 million for a red spider-like metal structure in front of the county library. Most citizens despise it as an unsightly waste of money. Yet, they also built the rattlesnake bridge, at an added cost of only 10% to the bridge's cost (I don't have the exact figures), and the reaction is mixed (mostly because the complete project isn't finished due to budget issues). Images of both are available here: http://www.virtualtucsonmagazine.com/main/arts/ql/pubart/publicart.html Federally, the National Endowment for the Arts previously provided grants to "artists" with an annual budget of $121 million of taxpayer money. The "NEA Four" caused a great ruckus in the art community for their performance art funded by tax dollars, so the NEA stopped funding individual artists. Midian 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Art commentary from a Neo-Conservative Contrary to many of my fellow Republicans who are always stereotyping the Arts and publicly-funded art (i.e. describing art as homo-erotic, not meeting classical standards, etc.), I actually side with the perspective that Art should be supported by public funding, for many of the same reasons that my liberal colleagues would argue (i.e. art left to the dictates of capitalism can produce a homogenized lack of variety, lack of creativity, etc.). Contrary to my liberal colleagues, however, I do not see public funding for the arts as the answer either (e.g. socialist governments, especially communism, often if not usually produce art that is similarly bland, mass-produced, etc. but with the state, not the market determining such inferior artistic quality). Contra the liberal and the conservative political perspectives, as a Neo-conservative "Theo-crat" who views all government as directly under the LORDship of Jesus Christ (whether secular or religious human government), the theological commentary I wish to add is that Art is a fundamentally human act that is creative. This is a direct appeal to Christian understandings of the human person as created equal in the Image of God and thus all art should be given a fair hearing, even art that may be objectionable or offensive. This is also a direct appeal to the Christian understanding of creativity in which creativity itself is a reflection of the Divine Image within which all human beings, at our best, can participate in creation, producing technology, art, social structures, etc. For the explicitly Christian believer, such a participation in creation even takes on redemptive qualities. Here I am thinking of Catholic (Franciscan) writer Raniero Cantalamessa http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/index.php whose excellent book Come, Creator Spirit helped me re-conceptualize the role of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing act of creation. Contrary to old high school natural science textbooks that portrayed creation as a somewhat static conglomeration of natural processes, Cantalamessa's book by citing the ongoing role of God interacting with creation through His Spirit, renders obsolete such grade-school understandings of scientific causation in favor of a more robust view of nature as dynamic, filled with constant flows of energy, etc. How this effects such a political discussion of art per se is that art is itself a human provision whereby parts of creation can be reconceptualized in new ways producing beauty, and through the work of the Creator Spirit, such beauty is empowered, enlivened, and at its best a glimpse of heaven itself. So, what is the "cash value" politically in the extended theological narration just given one may ask? Although such a utilitarian question may be repugnant to the very non-utilitarian nature of art itself, it is nonetheless a question at least worth answering when issues such as public funding are debated. To be blunt, the public funding needed for the arts would come at the level of human aspiration. Those cultures that aspire less toward heaven itself will see little need to oppose nor support public funding for the arts. Apathy is the greatest enemy to the arts, not heated debate. In conclusion, the amount of debate that we have concerning art would serve as a culture barometric pressure check. If we are little concerned with the beauty of art, music, the human body, etc, then we are truly lapsing into a new barbarism. If, however, we ARE concerned about such issues, and even debate them in new media outlets such as the Wikia Arts column, then this itself is a sign of hope. In barbaric society, art is neither praised nor villified, only ignored. My prayer as a Christian pastor is that art be debated, for in such debate lies the hope of a better civilization just around the post-modern cultural corner. Of course, we may have to fund such art for a while through publicly-supported taxation, at least until the barbarians (capitalistic and communistic!) realize that their ignoring of art is itself an issue to be overcome by the rest of us who happen to wish for a glimpse of heaven through art, human physical beauty, music, etc.--RobJKing 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Rob J King, Political Commentator